Coveragehttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/7712/all
enBBC Pulls The Plug On Climate Change Deniershttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/08/bbc-pulls-plug-climate-change-deniers
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/headlines.jpg?itok=RaDY7LI6" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Corporate-controlled media outlets have figured out that debate, or more appropriately <em>heated</em> debate and confrontation, can generate larger audiences than a bunch of people sitting around a table agreeing with one another. And this can work for some topics, such as the best way to tackle immigration reform or how to reduce the federal budget deficit. <br /><br />
But when faced with an issue that clearly only has one side, the corporate media continues to parade anti-reality talking heads into their studios, hoping that they can help boost ratings. That is what has happened with the issue of climate change.</p>
<p>The American media have not been the only guilty parties. Media outlets in other parts of the world have been just as willing to put climate change deniers on television to spread misinformation about an issue that will effect the lives of all of earth’s inhabitants. </p>
<p>But unlike the American media, outlets in the rest of the world have realized that the issue of climate change is far too important to allow deniers on their networks to attack the <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">scientific consensus</a> with no actual evidence.</p>
<p>This month, the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/07/3456782/bbc-cuts-climate-deniers/"><span class="caps">BBC</span> instructed its reporters</a> to stop giving credence to climate change deniers on the air. The network said that they do want to remain neutral on scientific issues, but that there is a very real distinction between neutrality and false balance. <a href="Editorially,%20this%20type%20of%20debate%20makes%20the%20network%20look%20like%20it%25E2%2580%2599s%20being%20balanced,%20giving%20equal%20opportunity%20to%20opposite%20viewpoints.%20However,%20because%2095%20to%2097%20percent%20of%20climate%20scientists%20agree%20that%20man-made%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions%20are%20causing%20the%20planet%20to%20warm,%20that%20balance%20is%20false,%20giving%20disproportionate%20time%20to%20a%20viewpoint%20that%20is%20widely%20rejected%20in%20the%20scientific%20community.">Think Progress explains</a> the difference between the two:</p>
<!--break-->
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Editorially, this type of debate makes the network look like it’s being balanced, giving equal opportunity to opposite viewpoints. However, because 95 to 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing the planet to warm, that balance is false, giving disproportionate time to a viewpoint that is widely rejected in the scientific community.</p>
<p>Think Progress also pointed out that the “false balance” trap is what has plagued American media for years. The idea is that putting one scientist against a climate change denier creates a balance, even though one guest is backed by science and the other is not. As <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/12/3436771/john-oliver-climate-change-debate/">John Oliver recently pointed out</a>, an honest “debate” about climate change would involve 97 scientists versus 3.</p>
<p><object height="315" width="560"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/cjuGCJJUGsg?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/v/cjuGCJJUGsg?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560"></embed></object></p>
<p>The <span class="caps">BBC</span> is not the first outlet that has tried to weed out climate change deniers. In 2012, the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/18/climate-sceptic-aussie-radio-host-must-take-fact-checking-course-says-authority">government of Australia forced conservative radio host Alan Jones</a> to take a fact-checking seminar after he repeatedly told his listeners that climate change was a farce, and that there was no sound science on the subject.</p>
<p>American media outlets, on the other hand, not only tolerate anti-science viewpoints, but embrace them. A <a href="http://ringoffireradio.com/2014/07/bbc-to-journalists-stop-giving-quacks-airtime/">recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists</a> showed that cable news giants <span class="caps">CNN</span> and Fox News reported incorrect information about climate change in 33% and 72% of their coverage of the issue, respectively.</p>
<p>In the days and weeks following the release of the federal government’s climate change report earlier this year, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/05/09/study-top-cable-news-coverage-of-federal-climat/199247">Media Matters showed</a> that <span class="caps">CNN</span> cast doubt on the report in 19% of their coverage. Additionally, Fox News referred to the report, and climate change in general, as “<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/05/09/study-top-cable-news-coverage-of-federal-climat/199247">the oldest superstition around</a>.” In total, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/05/09/study-top-cable-news-coverage-of-federal-climat/199247">86% of the guests invited</a> onto cable news shows to discuss the report were not scientists.</p>
<p>Cable news outlets are not the only media forums that are guilty of giving deniers a microphone: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-coverage-of-un-clima/196387">Print media is equally guilty</a>. <br /><br /><a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-coverage-of-un-clima/196387">In response to</a> the recent <span class="caps">UN</span> <span class="caps">IPCC</span> report, 18% of print media casted doubt on the subject, while 10% remained “neutral” via false balance. Those numbers do not account for all print media, just a selection from a Media Matters report that looked at Bloomberg News, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times.</p>
<p>The move by the <span class="caps">BBC</span> to shut out climate change deniers is a bold step, but a necessary one. The science is clear on human-caused global warming, and the longer we allow deniers to confuse the public about the issue, the more irreversible damage will be caused by our inaction.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5157">media</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7712">Coverage</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/627">Fox News</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/bbc">BBC</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1370">cnn</a></div></div></div>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:23:50 +0000Farron Cousins8281 at http://www.desmogblog.comMisinformation Is Winning – Doubt In Climate Change Climbinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/01/misinformation-winning-doubt-climate-change-climbing
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/misinformation.jpg?itok=ijOSdPou" width="200" height="234" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/steady-increase-in-climate-rel/19974069">Climate change-related disasters</a> have been rising for decades; yearly temperatures are <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2615">rising in a nearly consistent pattern</a>; extreme weather events are <a href="http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_21/Climate-change-on-Earth-costs-1-2-trillion-to-global-economy-environmentalists-0233/">costing economies across the globe</a> hundreds of billions of dollars. Despite the mounting evidence that climate change is both real and a major threat to our security, more people are buying into the idea that <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/195852-2013-saw-rise-in-those-who-dont-believe-in-global-warming">climate change is a myth</a>.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/195852-2013-saw-rise-in-those-who-dont-believe-in-global-warming">new poll from Yale University and George Mason</a> shows that the percentage of Americans who don’t believe in climate change rose 7% in 2013 to 23% of the entire population. While 63% of the general public believes that climate change is occurring, only 47% believe that human activities are to blame. The poll also revealed that less than 50% of Americans believe that climate change will affect their lives, but 65% say that it could harm future generations. </p>
<p>This shift in public opinion in 2013 happened during <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/january/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut_pQ_ZMGTf">a</a><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/january/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut_pQ_ZMGTf">nother record-breaking temperature year</a>, with 2013 being the seventh warmest year on record. </p>
<p>All of the evidence points to the fact that climate change is real and that human beings are making it worse. <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming">Scientists agree that it is happening</a>, and the <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/11/18/disaster-climate-resilience-in-a-changing-world">physical evidence is all around us</a>, so the big question is: why is the number of climate change deniers increasing?</p>
<p>The answer is that the misinformation machine has kicked into high gear, and 2013 saw a massive increase in the amount of climate change denial being given a microphone throughout various forms of media.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>In the blog world, noted climate change denier and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano">industry-funded lawyer Marc Morano</a> made the claim that 2013 saw a decrease in the number of extreme weather events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and droughts, as evidence that climate change isn’t happening. However, while 2013 did see a drop in these events, their overall occurrence has increased dramatically over the last 4 decades, making Morano’s “small picture” view of the problem grossly inaccurate.</p>
<p>But Morano is small potatoes compared to the larger misinformation campaign taking place.</p>
<p><a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/16/study-how-broadcast-news-covered-climate-change/197612">Media Matters compiled a report</a> earlier this month detailing the lackluster coverage of climate change in 2013, even after a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-coverage-of-un-clima/196387">major <span class="caps">U.N.</span> report</a> and a presidential speech on the need to address the growing threat. </p>
<p><a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/16/study-how-broadcast-news-covered-climate-change/197612">According to their report</a>, mentions of climate change increased slightly in 2013 (but still remained below the highest point of coverage achieved during 2009), but the majority of the coverage was skewed to the denial side. <br /><br />
Rather than bringing on scientists to discuss the issue, networks like Fox, <span class="caps">ABC</span> and <span class="caps">CBS</span> relied instead on Republican politicians and pundits to tell the story, which was often no different than the dirty energy industry’s talking points on the subject. <br /><br />
Altogether, the three major networks — <span class="caps">ABC</span>, <span class="caps">CBS</span>, and <span class="caps">NBC</span> — aired a total of one hour and 52 minutes worth of programming related to climate change during their evening news programs in 2013. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/06/media-failure-iraq-war-climate-change">The Guardian compared the media’s coverage</a> (or lack thereof) on climate change to the way the media handled the run-up to the Iraq War. In both instances, says The Guardian, the media failed to do their job and fact check the talking points from both industry and government, and led the public to believe that the problem was much worse (or less severe in the case of climate change) than reality would have us believe.</p>
<p>2014 isn’t off to a much better start, either. The polar vortex and ensuing massive winter storms have given the deniers plenty of “evidence” to say that climate change is a hoax, <a href="http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/climate-change-skeptics-winter-cold-global-warming-still-real-20140107">ignoring the fact</a> that climate change helped pave the way for the vortex. There's even a term for this trend, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/29/state-of-the-union-is-warming-despite-right-win/197809">snow-trolling</a>.</p>
<p>As extreme weather events increase and global temperatures continue to rise, so will the attacks on climate science. <br /><br />
The problem is not necessarily the denial industry, but a public that is so unwilling to accept the truth that they will buy into any piece of “good” news, even if all evidence points to the contrary.<br /> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:10px;"><em>Image credit – <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Springer.jpg">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>. </em></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1399">Media Matters</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3354">The Guardian</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7712">Coverage</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5157">media</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1196">marc morano</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5692">Industry</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6304">talking points</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6651">Poll</a></div></div></div>Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:00:00 +0000Farron Cousins7777 at http://www.desmogblog.comMedia Matters Explains Media's Climate Silence In Election Coveragehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/13/media-matters-analyzes-climate-silence-election-coverage
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/break_silence.jpg?itok=_fQ9c-gQ" width="200" height="150" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Polls over the last year tell us that the vast majority of Americans (<a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kgrenfell/new_poll_americans_believe_glo.html">70%</a>) understand that climate change is taking place, with <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kgrenfell/new_poll_americans_believe_glo.html">54% saying</a> that they believe human activities are to blame. <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kgrenfell/new_poll_americans_believe_glo.html">72% of Americans</a> believe that the government should make dealing with climate change a priority. </p>
<p>Why then did the mainstream media devote more time to Vice President Joe Biden’s smile than to climate change in their coverage of this year’s elections? That is a difficult question to answer.</p>
<p>In the months and weeks before the election, independent media outlets were begging both candidates and the traditional media to “<a href="http://climatesilence.org/">end the climate silence</a>,” and finally bring up the issue of global climate change. Instead, we were treated to stories about Joe Biden’s smile and Paul Ryan’s workout routines.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/13/study-tv-media-covered-bidens-smile-nearly-twic/191341">Media Matters has released a new report</a>, detailing the issues that the mainstream press covered, instead of devoting time to covering an issue that, as the polls tell us, is of utmost importance to American citizens.</p>
<p>From the new report:</p>
<!--break-->
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">Since August 1, the major cable and broadcast networks have spent just over three and a half hours discussing climate change in the context of the presidential election. But this was largely driven by <span class="caps">MSNBC</span>, which spent over two and a half hours on climate change – more than three times as much as the other networks combined. Outside of <span class="caps">MSNBC</span>, <span class="caps">TV</span> networks spent 51 minutes (rounded to the nearest minute) discussing climate change. By contrast, those outlets spent over an hour and a half discussing how much Biden smiled or laughed during the vice presidential debate.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;"><span class="caps">ABC</span>, <span class="caps">NBC</span> And Fox Virtually Ignored Climate Change. In total, the three major broadcast networks spent just 15 minutes discussing climate change in the context of the election. The bulk of this coverage – over 11 minutes – was on <span class="caps">CBS</span>, which dedicated three separate segments to climate change and the election. <span class="caps">ABC</span> and <span class="caps">NBC</span> did not air a single segment on climate change in the context of the election. Fox News mentioned climate change 19 times for a total of just 13 minutes of election coverage – the least among the major cable networks.</p>
<p>These findings are <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/media-fails-again-climate-change-coverage-during-massive-heat-waves">consistent with previous reports that Media Matters</a> has put out, where they found that media outlets will almost always opt to avoid the issue of climate change.</p>
<p>To make matters worse, when the major networks and print outlets actually did discuss climate change, they left the discussion up to politicos and pundits, rather than actual climate scientists:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">In election coverage of climate change, media outlets often turned to politicians and journalists rather than scientists. Scientists made up less than 6 percent of <span class="caps">TV</span> guests and just 5 percent of those quoted by print outlets on climate change in the context of the election. <span class="caps">ABC</span>, <span class="caps">NBC</span>, Fox News, <em><span class="caps">USA</span> Today</em>, <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, <em>San Jose Mercury News</em>, <em>Las Vegas Review-Journal</em>, <em>Denver Post</em>, <em>Dallas Morning News</em> and the <em>St. Petersburg-Tampa Bay Times</em>, and the <em>Des Moines Register</em> did not interview or quote a single scientist on climate change.</p>
<p>Sadly, the problems don’t end with the ignoring of the experts. Media Matters also points out that 63% of the coverage on climate change that casted doubt on the issue were not rebutted or covered in a critical manner, meaning that <a href="http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/13/study-tv-media-covered-bidens-smile-nearly-twic/191341">people like Mitt Romney</a> were allowed to cast doubt on the occurrence of climate change without the media outlets mentioning that there is a virtual consensus among the scientific community that climate change is very real.</p>
<p>Had it not been for Hurricane Sandy, it is likely, according to Media Matters, that climate change discussions could have been almost completely non-existent in the media. Sadly, it took a national tragedy to put the issue back on the media’s radar, and there’s no telling how long it’ll take before they move onto another hot button issue and forget all about the lessons we were supposed to learn from Sandy.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10799">Hurricane Sandy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5648">Report</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1399">Media Matters</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2257">mitt romney</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5445">election</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10382">News</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10968">Print</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9460">journalism</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7712">Coverage</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6607">Bias</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10969">Silence</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2259">joe biden</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6679">Paul Ryan</a></div></div></div>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:10:12 +0000Farron Cousins6653 at http://www.desmogblog.comMedia Fails Again On Climate Change Coverage During Massive Heat Waveshttp://www.desmogblog.com/media-fails-again-climate-change-coverage-during-massive-heat-waves
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/corporate%20media%20ball%20chain.jpg?itok=b4gpgEoQ" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>North America just witnessed the <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120808-hottest-month-july-warming-temperature-dust-bowl-nation-science/">hottest month in the history of record keeping</a> (about 117 years). The month of July shattered every previous record, but was certainly not a freak occurrence. So far, the first 7 months of this year have been <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120808-hottest-month-july-warming-temperature-dust-bowl-nation-science/">the warmest on average</a> since records began over a century ago. Media outlets were abuzz with coverage of floods, droughts, fires, and storms, so naturally you’d think climate change would have played a massive role in their coverage.<br /><br />
You’d be wrong.<br /><br />
A <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/15/tv-media-ignore-climate-change-in-coverage-of-r/189366">great new study by Media Matters for America</a> shows that our major media outlets – from cable news to print – almost completely ignored the role that man-made climate change played in our severe weather.<br /><br /><a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/15/tv-media-ignore-climate-change-in-coverage-of-r/189366">According to the study</a>, only about 25% of print articles on the massive heat wave even mentioned climate change, while less than 9% of <span class="caps">TV</span> news stories about the weather mentioned climate change. Of the major cable outlets, <span class="caps">MSNBC</span> devoted the most time to discussing climate change, bringing up the issue in about 88% of their stories on the heat wave.<br /><br />
Not surprisingly, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/15/tv-media-ignore-climate-change-in-coverage-of-r/189366">Fox News only mentioned climate change once</a>, and the theory was quickly shot down by conservative hosts.<br /><br />
From the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/15/tv-media-ignore-climate-change-in-coverage-of-r/189366">Media Matters report</a>:</p>
<!--break-->
<blockquote>
Of the six <span class="caps">TV</span> outlets included in our analysis, <span class="caps">ABC</span> mentioned climate change the least, in only 2% of coverage. Among the cable networks, <span class="caps">CNN</span> mentioned climate change the least, in less than 4% of coverage. <span class="caps">MSNBC</span> was the only television network to regularly incorporate climate change into primetime segments on extreme heat.<br /><br />
Fox Mentioned Climate Change Once, Only To Dismiss It. In six primetime segments on extreme heat, Fox News raised climate change once. The Five's only liberal co-host Bob Beckel noted that record July heat is consistent with global warming, and was promptly dismissed by co-host Greg Gutfeld, who routinely denies that manmade global warming is occurring.<br /><br />
Overall, the major print outlets mentioned climate change in just over a quarter of articles on extreme heat. The New York Times led the pack, mentioning climate change in more than half of its coverage (54.5%), and the Washington Post mentioned it in 26% of articles on July heat. But the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, and <span class="caps">USA</span> Today mentioned it in less than 15% of coverage. The Wall Street Journal didn't mention climate change at all, although the paper had significantly fewer stories on extreme heat.<br /><br />
Only 8% Of Coverage Pointed Out That Human Activities Are Driving Climate Change. Only 6% of television segments and 12% of print articles noted that climate change is fueled by human activities including the burning of fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. The Associated Press, <span class="caps">USA</span> Today, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal never made that connection.<br />
</blockquote>
<p>Media Matters <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/15/tv-media-ignore-climate-change-in-coverage-of-r/189366">also took the time</a> to show that these events were predictable, and that they were consistent with the effects we were expecting with anthropogenic climate change:<br /> </p>
<blockquote>
A 2012 Special Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<span class="caps">IPCC</span>) deemed it “virtually certain” that heat extremes will become stronger and more frequent on a global scale in the 21st century, and “very likely” that heat waves will increase in “length, frequency, and/or intensity … over most land areas.” The report noted that “[p]rojected changes at subcontinental scales are less certain than is the case for the global scale” and that “[m]ean global warming does not necessarily imply warming in all regions and seasons.”<br /><br />
A study by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's James Hansen and other scientists found that land areas across the globe are “much more likely to experience an extreme summer heat wave than they were in the middle of the 20th century”.<br />
</blockquote>
<p>But this isn’t the first time that the media has failed in their coverage of climate and environment-related events. In January of this year, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/media-matters-analysis-shows-keystone-xl-proponents-dominated-media">Media Matters put together a report</a> showing that media outlets were almost twice as likely to host Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> proponents in their coverage of that issue. <a href="http://desmogblog.com/media-matters-report-shows-network-tv-preference-anti-environment-guests">A report from the organization last year</a> also showed that climate skeptics and anti-<span class="caps">EPA</span> carpers were more likely to receive airtime than those who acknowledge climate change science and support strong environmental safeguards.<br /><br />
The poor media coverage could be the main reason why <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/30/poll-global-warming-and-taxing-the-rich-rank-low-on-voters-radar/">American voters don’t believe that climate and environment issues are important</a> in this year’s elections, with only 21% saying that combatting climate change is important to them. Canadians, on the other hand, have clearly learned more than Americans simply by observation, as a <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/07/poll-generation-x-unconcerned-about-climate-change/1?csp=34news#.UCveKES5KTY">new poll shows that only 2%</a> of Canadians believe that climate change is a hoax.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/noaa">NOAA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/msnbc">MSNBC</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/canada">canada</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/627">Fox News</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1399">Media Matters</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5445">election</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5857">Keystone XL</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6325">Study</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6651">Poll</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7712">Coverage</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9551">Record</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9970">Heat Wave</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9971">July</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9972">USA</a></div></div></div>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:54:30 +0000Farron Cousins6468 at http://www.desmogblog.comHot Enough For Ya? Extreme Weather Events Consistent With Climate Change Sciencehttp://www.desmogblog.com/hot-enough-ya-extreme-weather-events-consistent-climate-change-science
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/temperature%20map.gif?itok=4_Szjiz9" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48095029/ns/technology_and_science-science/">Large portions of the <span class="caps">U.S.</span></a> are on fire. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57467543/drought-reaches-record-56-percent-of-continental-u.s/">Record droughts</a> currently encompass massive swaths of America. The areas not experiencing droughts have been <a href="http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120705/SCIENCE/207050351/Record-heat-floods-could-global-warming?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs">inundated with flooding</a>. Winter weather in many areas was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/winter-2012-weather_n_1247464.html">almost non-existent</a>. A few years ago, an Academy Award-winning film called “An Inconvenient Truth” warned wary Americans that all of these events would become the new normal due to climate change. But these are no longer warnings – this is the reality that we’re living in now.<br /><br />
It is becoming increasingly more difficult to ignore the evidence of extreme weather that surrounds all of us. And it isn’t just the United States. Every corner of the globe is <a href="http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2012/jul/06/flood-alerts-uk-heavy-rain-sweeps/">experiencing the direct effects of climate change</a> in some form or fashion. And again, we were warned that all of this was going to happen.<br /><br />
My hometown of Gulf Breeze, Florida feels like it's been a petri dish for climate change disaster stories. In the past month, we’ve had two separate droughts that were both ended by flash flooding. In between these events, we avoided a hit from pre-season tropical storm Debby, which turned eastward and drenched central Florida with torrential rains. Last weekend we had a heat index of 112 degrees, and I awoke this morning (again, after weeks of drought) to find half of my yard underwater due to coastal flooding.<br /><br />
In the U.S., the reality of climate change has certainly been an eye opener for many Americans.<br /> </p>
<!--break-->
<p>This year has been like none we’ve ever seen. It began in the winter, when snowfall <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/winter-2012-weather_n_1247464.html">dropped to near-record lows</a>, whereas the previous year had given us record amounts of snowfall. Some areas did see an <a href="http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/january-2012-breaks-heat-cold/60824">increase in snowfall</a>, but that was quickly offset by record-breaking high temperatures. Springtime also brought us record-breaking temperatures, and has now become the hottest Spring season on record. In March alone, a staggering <a href="http://earthsky.org/earth/in-march-2012-15000-warm-temperature-records-broken-in-us">15,000 high-temperature records were broken</a>. For the entire year, as of July 3<sup>rd</sup>, <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0703/Why-has-2012-been-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-the-US">we’ve broken more than 40,000 high-temperature records</a> in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span><br /><br />
In January of this year, the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> witnessed at least <a href="http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/january-2012-breaks-heat-cold/60824">70 tornadoes</a>. Since then, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_of_2012">almost 800 additional tornadoes have been reported</a> in the country.<br /><br />
And, for once, most of the media is actually paying attention. Here’s a recent piece from the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/climate-change-belief-global-warming_n_1653115.html?utm_hp_ref=green">Associated Press, via Huffington Post</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Among the extreme events…record-breaking wildfires in the West in the past two years, including in Colorado, where blazes recently damaged or destroyed nearly 350 homes and killed two people.<br /><br />
Last spring was the warmest in the Unites States since 1895, when records were first kept. For only the third time since hurricane records started in 1851, two hurricanes formed over the North Atlantic before the season officially began June 1.<br />
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/30/509246/nbc-meteorologist-on-record-heat-wave-if-we-didnt-have-global-warming-we-wouldnt-see-this/">Think Progress reported</a> on several <span class="caps">NBC</span> affiliates that have sounded the alarm over the extreme weather events we’re seeing:</p>
<blockquote>
<span class="caps">NBC</span> Meteorologist Bill Karins said on Friday , “We’ve never really seen a heat wave like this in the month of June.” Sadly, in a few decades this will just be considered a normal June.<br /><br />
How hot is it? It is so hot that <span class="caps">NBC</span> Washington’s Chief Meteorologist, Doug Kammerer, explained on air “If we did not have global warming, we wouldn’t see this.”<br />
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57467543/drought-reaches-record-56-percent-of-continental-u.s/"><span class="caps">CBSN</span>ews.com ran the following</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
The United States is parched, with more than half of the lower 48 states experiencing moderate to extreme drought, according to a report released today (July 5).<br /><br />
Just under 56 percent of the contiguous United States is in drought conditions, the most extensive area in the 12-year history of the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Drought Monitor. The previous drought records occurred on Aug. 26, 2003, when 54.79 percent of the lower 48 were in drought and on Sept 10, 2002, when drought extended across 54.63 percent of this area.<br />
</blockquote>
<p>There are <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/climate-change-us-heat-wave-wildfire-flooding_n_1645616.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003">countless stories</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/04/510677/climate-change-understanding-rebounds-to-2009-levels/">online</a> <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_WEIRD_WEATHER?SITE=AP&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&amp;CTIME=2012-07-03-03-05-05">quoting experts</a> <a href="http://www.americablog.com/2012/07/wild-fires-heatwaves-crazy-winds-this.html">who are proclaiming</a> “this is what climate change looks like.”<br /><br />
But that’s just the online print world. The mainstream media is a different story all together. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/07/03/study-media-avoid-climate-context-in-wildfire-c/186921">According to Media Matters</a>, the idea of “climate change” has been absent from most of the reporting on the devastating wildfires that have engulfed Colorado: <em>The major television and print outlets largely ignored climate change in their coverage of wildfires in Colorado, New Mexico and other Western states. All together, only 3 percent of the reports mentioned climate change, including 1.6 percent of television segments and 6 percent of text articles. </em><br /><br />
These findings are on par with <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/04/16/study-climate-coverage-plummets-on-broadcast-ne/184103">a previous Media Matters report</a> from earlier this year, that showed that coverage of climate change and related issues fell by 90% on Sunday morning talk shows between the years 2009 and 2011, and by 72% on nightly news programs.<br /><br />
The recent extreme weather events have done <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/virginia_republicans_oppose_sea-level_rise_languag.php">little to sway the hardcore climate deniers</a>, but the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/climate-change-belief-global-warming_n_1653115.html?utm_hp_ref=green">American public seems to be paying attention</a>. They are starting to realize that this is no longer an issue where we can bury our heads in the sand. Climate change is happening, and that’s the sad reality in which we now live.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/weather">weather</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/science">Science</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2010">drought</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2187">Colorado</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5157">media</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7712">Coverage</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8349">Flood</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9560">Extreme Events</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9561">Wildfire</a></div></div></div>Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:00:00 +0000Farron Cousins6408 at http://www.desmogblog.comRupert Murdoch’s Newspapers Mislead Public On Climate Change and Environmenthttp://www.desmogblog.com/rupert-murdoch-s-newspapers-mislead-public-climate-change-and-environment
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Rupert%20Murdoch%202.jpg?itok=UjO9-If6" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>When it comes to climate change misinformation, arguably no single person has done more to spread false information to confuse the public than <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/31/308528/scientist-the-murdoch-media-empire-has-cost-humanity-perhaps-one-or-two-decades-of-time-in-the-battle-against-climate-change/">Rupert Murdoch.</a> With his vast media empire that spans the globe, Murdoch has helped misdirect the public, as well as to openly advocate against government policies that would curtail carbon emissions or impose other environmental safeguards.<br /><br />
And while most American media outlets saw a <a href="http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/01/climate-coverage-2011">decline in their coverage</a> of climate change-related stories, Murdoch’s overseas newspapers actually <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/05/398594/murdoch-press-carbon-price-negative-campaigned-against-it/?utm_medium=twitter&amp;utm_source=twitterfeed">increased their coverage of such stories</a> – though not in a helpful way. The story that got the most attention involved a government policy in Australia that put a price on carbon pollution. Here is an analysis of Murdoch’s coverage, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/05/398594/murdoch-press-carbon-price-negative-campaigned-against-it/?utm_medium=twitter&amp;utm_source=twitterfeed">via Think Progress</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
The range of findings show a clear political bias against the carbon pricing policy moving through parliament in 2011:<br /><br />
The claims by many single sources about the likely impact of the carbon policy were not tested against the views of other sources. Only 42% of the rest of the articles included more than two sources.<br /><br />
Fossil fuel lobby and other big business sources opposed to the policy were very strongly represented, often without any critique or second source.<br /><br />
Business sources (23%) receive more coverage than all Australian civil society sources together including unions, <span class="caps">NGOS</span>, think tanks, activists, members of the public, religious spokespeople, scientists and academics (17%).<br /><br />
Business sources quoted 4 or more times over the 6-month period were quoted being negative towards the policy in almost 80% of occasions. <strong>Many Australian readers would have been left with the impression that the nearly the entire business community was opposed to the carbon price policy. In fact this was far from the truth.</strong><br /><br />
Academics and scientists were also poorly represented.</blockquote>
<!--break-->
<p>ThinkProgress also provided this chart, detailing numerous Murdoch papers and their respective positive/negative coverage of the carbon price in Australia:<br /><br /><a href="http://s1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb321/fcousins1/?action=view&amp;current=Screen-shot-2012-01-05-at-13927-PM.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket" border="0" src="http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb321/fcousins1/Screen-shot-2012-01-05-at-13927-PM.jpg" /></a><br /><em>The top six newspapers - all owned by Rupert Murdoch - are </em><em>most negative about the Australian government’s carbon policy</em><em>. </em></p>
<p>Murdoch’s media outlets have also led to an unhealthy lack of knowledge on climate change-related issues in the United States, as we pointed out <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/fox-news-viewers-are-most-misinformed-seventh-study-arrives-prove-it-and-vindicate-jon-stewart">here</a> and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-change-spin-growing-problem-fox-news">here</a>.<br /><br />
Murdoch and his outlets have an agenda. There’s no question about that. The problem is that so many people remain ignorant of this agenda, and soak up his employees’ reporting as gospel truth.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/rupert-murdoch">rupert murdoch</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2327">environment</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3217">the australian</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5157">media</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6406">Carbon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6607">Bias</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7712">Coverage</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8054">Daily Telegraph</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8055">Times</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8056">Advocacy</a></div></div></div>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:00:00 +0000Farron Cousins5965 at http://www.desmogblog.comClimate Change Spin A Growing Problem For Fox Newshttp://www.desmogblog.com/climate-change-spin-growing-problem-fox-news
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/fox%20global%20warming.jpg?itok=GZAkb_H3" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>When it comes to climate change denial, a new study shows that the folks at Fox News are leading the pack. Through politically-charged news segments and commentary, Fox News personalities are helping spread misinformation about climate change while convincing their viewers that scientists are torn on the issue.<br /><br />
The International Journal of Press/Politics has published a new study titled <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CB4QFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimateshiftproject.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FFeldmanStudy.pdf&amp;ei=dm_FToTOIueniALItJ20BQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNFCJwGcoBgetkcOJ79kZHKNjD0S6g">“Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, <span class="caps">CNN</span>, and <span class="caps">MSNBC</span>,” [<span class="caps">PDF</span>]</a> which details the ways in which the major American news outlets are reporting stories on climate change.</p>
<p>From the report:</p>
<blockquote>
National surveys reveal that many Americans do not believe that scientists are in agreement over this issue. More troubling, the number of Americans who believe that global warming is happening and that it is a result of human activities has declined in recent years: In April 2008, 71 percent of Americans perceived solid evidence for global warming, relative to only 57 percent in October 2009. And while President Obama has pledged that passing legis- lation to curb pollution that contributes to global warming is a priority of his admin- istration, in January 2009, Americans ranked global warming last in a list of twenty policy issues that they felt were important for the president and Congress to address. These surveys also point to stark partisan divides in global warming perceptions, with Democrats far more likely to accept the evidence for the human causes of global warming and to consider environmental protection a policy priority than Republicans.</blockquote>
<p>The views that many Americans have towards climate change are clearly reflected in the cable news arena. Fox News, sadly, has the <a href="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/11/08/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-november-7-2011/110004/">highest ratings</a> of any other cable news organization, and the study shows that their viewers are for more likely to believe that manmade climate change isn’t happening. More from the study:</p>
<blockquote>
Of the three networks, Fox News was simultaneously the least likely to be accepting and the most likely to be dismissive of climate change. Nearly 60 percent of Fox News broadcasts were dismissive of climate change, whereas less than 20 percent were accepting of climate change. On the other hand, more than 70 percent of <span class="caps">CNN</span> and <span class="caps">MSNBC</span> broadcasts were accepting of climate change. Not a single <span class="caps">MSNBC</span> broadcast took a dismissive tone toward climate change and just 7 percent of <span class="caps">CNN</span> broadcasts did so.</blockquote>
<!--break-->
<p><br />
The fact is that at least <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1">97% of credible scientists believe</a> that climate change is not only real, but that it is the result of human activity. But that fact hasn’t prevented Fox News from reporting that there is no scientific consensus on whether or not climate change is actually happening.</p>
<p>And, as <a href="http://mediamatters.org/">Media Matters for America</a> pointed out recently, this isn’t just biased news coverage or the opinions of Fox anchors: The network’s climate change denial is part of a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111140010">broad agenda by network management to prevent the truth from reaching their viewers</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
As an internal email revealed, Fox's Washington managing editor Bill Sammon <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004">directed</a> Fox journalists in December 2009 to cast doubt on the basic fact that the planet has warmed.<br /><br />
That same month, Fox News <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200912030020">was</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240044">aggressively</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200912040030">promoting</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200911250033">the</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201108080030">false claim</a> that the so-called “Climategate” controversy showed scientists “<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200912030030">doctoring</a>” data – a claim that the network <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108300013">continues</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201108080030#fable">to repeat</a> to this day.<br /><br />
Fox has also tried to manufacture a number of pseudo-scandals by <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108010025">distorting</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105110017">climate</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107050010">science</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201106150023">research</a>, misrepresenting or <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201101270013">disavowing</a> the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108100018">temperature</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201102010025">record</a>, and seizing on <a href="http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201107280007">any</a> opportunity to distract from what the National Research Council has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdels.nas.edu%2FReport%2FAdvancing-Science-Climate-Change%2F12782">called</a> “a strong, credible body of evidence” supporting manmade climate change.<br /><br />
The study also found that Fox hosted “a higher ratio of climate change doubters to believers as interview guests.” These guests often <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108090029">don't know</a> what they're talking about but are <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201108170030">presented</a> as climate <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201101280015">experts</a>. And Fox, a network that has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201101270014">made</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201102010025#4">an</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107200009">annual</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110310008">tradition</a> out of mocking global warming during winter storms, reveals its bias through both what it chooses to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201108030029">cover</a>, and what it chooses <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110250015">to</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110190006">ignore</a>.</blockquote>
<p><br />
This is quickly becoming a systemic issue with Fox News. As the new report points out, Fox’s coverage has actually become more aggressive in recent years in their efforts to paint climate change as a hoax. Even as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/-ex-skeptic-richard-muller-congress-global-warming_n_1094966.html?ref=climate-change">former skeptics of climate change</a> are coming forward admitting that they were wrong on the issue, Fox continues to push their misinformation campaign on the American public - a public that is eating this news up, bringing a false sense of security to millions who no longer believe that climate change is something that we need to worry about.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/msnbc">MSNBC</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/627">Fox News</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1370">cnn</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1399">Media Matters</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1821">denial</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4624">Climategate</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7709">Cable</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7710">TV</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7711">Television</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7712">Coverage</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7713">Consensus</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7714">Scientist</a></div></div></div>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:15:42 +0000Farron Cousins5852 at http://www.desmogblog.com